Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120125
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.9.0-alpha0-374-g72c94f7a42-fm-20230417.001-g72c94f7a
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2bb9cda9-4bf8-49c8-aaec-7797c504d8e4@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPyj-LD+xOQYO92r+41pUfmc9sGWAjwy9fxC26Twngb_S0jUrw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <67b1e9b0-b7c6-71d4-cad2-2286edab759b@daniil.it>
 <2F21E8B8-190F-4E46-B42C-5EB490EE2AF7@gmail.com>
 <CAPyj-LD+xOQYO92r+41pUfmc9sGWAjwy9fxC26Twngb_S0jUrw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 13:28:13 +0000
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Final anonymous classes
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Tue, Apr 25, 2023, at 1:21 PM, Ilija Tovilo wrote:
> Hi Claude
>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I've submitted https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/11126 to add sup=
port for final anonymous classes, though as noted by iluuu1994, it would=
 probably make more sense to just make all anonymous classes final by de=
fault, what do you think?
>>
>> Extending an anonymous class is indeed possible (https://3v4l.org/pDF=
TL), but it is a hack as best. If someone wants a non-final class, could=
 they not write a non-anonymous one? As a bonus, they wouldn=E2=80=99t n=
eed to instantiate the class before referencing it.
>
> Indeed. The argument was that, if you need to give the anonymous class
> a dedicated name through an alias to extend it, you might as well
> declare a named class in the first place.
>
> In case somebody finds benefit in making anonymous classes open, it
> seems more sensible to make them opt into openness, rather than
> applying this behavior to all anonymous classes that are used as final
> 99.9% of the time. Although I really don't think that is necessary.
>
> Ilija

I agree, but that would then require adding some kind of "non-final" key=
word for anon classes to opt back out of finalness.  That's an extra com=
plication I don't see as worth the effort to think through.

Until this thread it hadn't even occurred to me that you could extend an=
 anon class at all, so the issue never came up.  And the apparent way to=
 do so involves eval(), so I'm already afraid of it.  Given how edge-cas=
ey this is, I'd be inclined to just leave it be.

--Larry Garfield